Cambridge guided busway

[tadhatter]

Apart from the obvious question of what the hell is the point of them given that you still need drivers my question is that, with the proposed re-opening of the varsity railway line between Oxford and Cambridge, will the busway be demolished?

 

[eastdyke]

Apart from the obvious question of what the hell is the point of them given that you still need drivers my question is that, with the proposed re-opening of the varsity railway line between Oxford and Cambridge, will the busway be demolished?

The Bedford - Cambridge section of any future rail route faces a number of interesting obstacles.

In the case of the guided busway I can state with absolute certainty that it will not be demolished - political considerations would not permit.

If/when the rail link goes ahead any local difficulty with the busway will result in a local deviation for the bus route. Remember that one of the advantages of a guided busway is that the buses do have a driver and can operate on normal roads.

A somewhat polarised view in answer to your obvious question is given by the Britpave organisation here:

http://www.britpave.org.uk/GBWhyBuild.ink

 

[tadhatter]

one of the advantages of a guided busway is that the buses do have a driver and can operate on normal roads.

A somewhat polarised view in answer to your obvious question is given by the Britpave organisation here:

http://www.britpave.org.uk/GBWhyBuild.ink

how exactly is that an advantage? That sounds like a normal bus to me. So why on earth do they need to be guided on other parts?

But anyway that's not the reason why I posted that in this category. I was just wondering if there is any scope in ditching the wretched thing for a proper railway line again along the original route.

 

[tbtc]

what the hell is the point of them given that you still need drivers

Presumably you are also against trains/ trams having drivers, despite the fact that they run on rails?

A somewhat polarised view in answer to your obvious question is given by the Britpave organisation here:

http://www.britpave.org.uk/GBWhyBuild.ink

Interesting to see how many guided busways we have compared to the rest of Europe (when you consider the "public transport is always better on the continent" attitude that some take)

 

[tadhatter]

Presumably you are also against trains/ trams having drivers, despite the fact that they run on rails?

er, obviously not. But part of the selling point about a GBW is/was the capability for them to be used without the need for a driver saving money on wages etc similar to the driverless trains on the DLR. The fact that they are dual mode by having to have a driver for every journey surely puts all the cpost of making them guided completely wasted. At least on many of the DLR trains I went on when i lived in London actually were driverless for many of their journey's (although they did have a guard).

 

[WestCountry]

Apart from the obvious question of what the hell is the point of them given that you still need drivers my question is that, with the proposed re-opening of the varsity railway line between Oxford and Cambridge, will the busway be demolished?

Only the southern route to Addenbrookes and Trumpington is on the Oxford line formation, the much longer and busier northern section is on the Cambridge-St Ives line and wouldn't be affected.

It would be very tricky to rebuild the Oxford route without demolishing at least the Addenbrookes-Trumpington arm of the busway - much of that is in a shallow cutting and is already only a single lane. It might be possible to squeeze one track in by moving the cycle/footpath and single-laning that entire length of the busway, but that would be operationally awkward for both modes and would still need a swathe cut through the Trumpington P&R carpark.

The option I can think of at Addenbrookes - other than removing the entire section of busway up to Hills Road and the station - would be to put in a junction at the Long Road bridge, make a much gentler transition onto the Trumpington route from there, and extend the busway overbridge to cross that route too. Not worth it though.

EDIT: Added diagram. Blue is current busway, orange is E-W line, red is the current line (or new housing not shown by Google).
The busway follows the old E-W route for this entire secton apart from the Addenbrooke's spur (to the left), but as shown a diversion of the new line to use the existing Long Road bridge could possibly save it north of Addenbrookes.

 

[Eagle]

how exactly is that an advantage? That sounds like a normal bus to me. So why on earth do they need to be guided on other parts?

It allows them to go faster, because there's no need for steering and the driver doesn't have to slow down as much for the bends. Additionally it means that the road can be narrower than a standard road (making it easier to fit within the trackbed's envelope), as the buses can pass each other much closer and faster than they would dare on an open road.

Additionally in this specific case it was to get buses off the A14 between Huntingdon and Cambridge, which is a busy three-lane dual carriageway already choked with a large number of freight lorries heading to and from Felixstowe and Harwich.

But anyway that's not the reason why I posted that in this category. I was just wondering if there is any scope in ditching the wretched thing for a proper railway line again along the original route.

You mention the Bedford to Cambridge (via Sandy) line; only a tiny bit of this is under the busway. Most of the busway is built on the Huntingdon to Cambridge line.

If you're worried about Bedford to Cambridge, then you may be interested to know that part of the trackbed at Lordsbridge is currently home to a sliding radio telescope owned by the Cavendish Laboratory.

But part of the selling point about a GBW is/was the capability for them to be used without the need for a driver saving money on wages etc similar to the driverless trains on the DLR.

That is not and never has been a selling point for guided busways. As you state, the very idea of a driverless guided busway is absurd.

 

[Xenophon PCDGS]

Interesting to see how many guided busways we have compared to the rest of Europe (when you consider the "public transport is always better on the continent" attitude that some take)

Besides the Leigh Guided Busway that is currently under construction, are there any other such projects in Britain proposed ?

 

[tbtc]

Presumably you are also against trains/ trams having drivers, despite the fact that they run on rails?

er, obviously not. But part of the selling point about a GBW is/was the capability for them to be used without the need for a driver saving money on wages etc similar to the driverless trains on the DLR. The fact that they are dual mode by having to have a driver for every journey surely puts all the cpost of making them guided completely wasted. At least on many of the DLR trains I went on when i lived in London actually were driverless for many of their journey's (although they did have a guard).

The "selling points" of a busway are generally along the lines that they allow a faster bus operation than a normal formation, they allow a lower land corridor than a normal formation (as Eagle has explained), they allow services to extend beyond the Guideway onto normal roads (which a train/tram wouldn't allow), they can attract more passengers than a normal bus service (the Cambridgeshire busway has exceeded passenger forecasts, which seems to be the "benchmark" that rail enthusiasts use to judge whether something was a success).

I don't think that I've ever heard anyone suggest that the advantage of a Guided Busway is that it allows you to get rid of drivers - which is why it seems strange that you are complaining that they still need a driver.

Even you accept that a tram or a train requires a driver, so why would you think that a Guided Bus doesn't need one?

 

[WestCountry]

If you're worried about Bedford to Cambridge, then you may be interested to know that part of the trackbed at Lordsbridge is currently home to a sliding radio telescope owned by the Cavendish Laboratory.

That bit even has track on it - the University used the front bogies off withdrawn Castles (IIRC) to put those movable telescopes on!

I believe the University hava agreed to move the telescopes if the line is ever rebuilt (at NR's cost presumably).

 

[starrymarkb]

Presumably you are also against trains/ trams having drivers, despite the fact that they run on rails?

er, obviously not. But part of the selling point about a GBW is/was the capability for them to be used without the need for a driver saving money on wages etc similar to the driverless trains on the DLR. The fact that they are dual mode by having to have a driver for every journey surely puts all the cpost of making them guided completely wasted. At least on many of the DLR trains I went on when i lived in London actually were driverless for many of their journey's (although they did have a guard).

I think you've got a guided busway mixed up with a rubber tyred metro like the VAL in Lille or Paris Metro. These are fully automatic, but are also fully segregated systems. They are essentially the DLR on tyres!

Wasn't one of the reasons for it being a bus way was the government offering a lot of money towards the cost for it to be a trial.

 

[Eagle]

they allow services to extend beyond the Guideway onto normal roads (which a train/tram wouldn't allow),

More specifically they allow flexibility in the service. It'd be easy to alter the street running part to serve road X or suburb Y at short notice, whereas with a tram you're kind of stuck with the street route you've got.

 

[Xenophon PCDGS]

That bit even has track on it - the University used the front bogies off withdrawn Castles (IIRC) to put those movable telescopes on!

I believe the University have agreed to move the telescopes if the line is ever rebuilt (at NR's cost presumably).

The current site of the Mullard Radio Astronomy Observatory was stated to to be in an ideal situation to exploit certain specific benefits of that area and is part of the national radio telescope facility operated by the Cambridge University and the Jodrell Bank Observatory of the University of Manchester. It is just not a matter of "finding another site" but one that has the same advantages offered by the existing site.

I should well imagine the British academic and scientific bodies will be infuriated to lose the existing site just to utilise the land for a transport project, as the previously used railway was subject to closure and when this occurred, what future land provision was made. May I ask if anyone can inform me as to what was written into the land deeds and associated entered codicils that govern future land usage. Was there only a certain time period granted for the use of the telescopes ?

 

[WestCountry]

The current site of the Mullard Radio Astronomy Observatory was stated to to be in an ideal situation to exploit certain specific benefits of that area and is part of the national radio telescope facility operated by the Cambridge University and the Jodrell Bank Observatory of the University of Manchester. It is just not a matter of "finding another site" but one that has the same advantages offered by the existing site.

I can't imagine the telescopes need to be precisely at that location - it would be rather fortunate to have a recently-abandoned railway in the exact place!
So, assuming they were put there originally because of the pre-existing formation, I can't see why building a new set of rails on any of the many open fields in the area (there are lots!) and moving the telescopes across would be a particular issue?

 

[Eagle]

Or building the railway through said fields, of course. :P

 

[telstarbox]

The Cambridgeshire Busway has far exceeded the predicted passenger numbers since it opened. At a recent talk by the project manager for the scheme it was explained that further services will be introduced on the busway in the future so it seems safe for now!

 

[snowball]

I think one of the attractions of the site for the telescopes was that it was a straight bit of railway. That might not be necessary today.

I would still have thought it easier to build the railway on a new alignment and leave the telescopes where they are. A new crossing of the M11 would be required either way.

 

[WestCountry]

Or building the railway through said fields, of course. :P

Unless they build it right next to the telescopes (vibrations?) that would mean a new overbridge for Haslingfield Road. The existing one was strengthened only last year, but I'm not sure if the new stuff they added obstructs the trackbed. :? Will have to look next time.

 

[edwin_m]

The answer is obvious. Attach the telescopes to the buses and run them on the busway instead.

 

[Xenophon PCDGS]

I can't imagine the telescopes need to be precisely at that location - it would be rather fortunate to have a recently-abandoned railway in the exact place!

I can't see why building a new set of rails on any of the many open fields in the area (there are lots!) and moving the telescopes across would be a particular issue?

The lack of vibration of the ground substrate is one of the reasons why the current telescope site was deemed eminently suitable. Can you imagine what the "new set of rails" (and associated rail traffic} that you describe in the localised open fields would do to the delicately synchronised telescope instrumentation ?

 

[PG]

I may well be talking out of my hat but I'm sure I read somewhere (no idea where) that due to the obstacles on the trackbed (new housing/telescope/busway) between Sandy and Cambridge that the plan was to link into the Royston line after Sandy to gain access to Cambridge that way?

 

[jopsuk]

The southern busway is currently much, much quieter than the northern section.
On the northern section northwest of Orchard Park, the off peak Monday-Saturday timetable has eight Stagecoach services (half them double decker) per hour, three on Sundays. The south can only take single deckers, has four per hour Monday-Saturday and none on Sunday.

(there's an hourly Whippet Monday-Saturday on the north section, with peak time extensions to the south)

The south busway however is having large amounts of housing built next to it- I can envisage services being needed on it that don't go via Addenbrookes. I reckon the decision not to engineer it to take double deckers may in the future be seen as short sighted...

 

[Eagle]

What actually makes it unsuitable for double deckers? Is it purely a weight thing?

 

[Johnuk123]

My wife uses it all the time and thinks it's fantastic.

 

[WestCountry]

What actually makes it unsuitable for double deckers? Is it purely a weight thing?

Height, through the newly-built portal under Hills Road (this one) and the ex-railway overbridges at Long Road and in Trumpington.
No way they could've avoided that really - they're all way too low, and the ones at Hills Road and Hauxton Road have quite steep dips under them already.

 

[edwin_m]

I may well be talking out of my hat but I'm sure I read somewhere (no idea where) that due to the obstacles on the trackbed (new housing/telescope/busway) between Sandy and Cambridge that the plan was to link into the Royston line after Sandy to gain access to Cambridge that way?

I've heard that too, possibly from the same hat.

Quite apart from the telescopes I think there are major problems restoring the section further west, and taking a route further south to pick up the Royston line opens up the possibility of serving Stevenage and perhaps even Luton. With all due respect to Sandy etc, the original Bedford-Cambridge route gives the impression of having been explicitly designed to avoid any significant settlement in between.

 

[duffield]

Just to note that it appears that the MRAO 'one mile' telescope (which seems to be the one on the rail formation) is effectively disused.
From wikipedia:

Though still occasionally used, it is now essentially retired (one of the dishes is occasionally used for undergraduate projects or by amateur radio astronomers).

Ref: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/One-Mile_Telescope

 

[Xenophon PCDGS]

Can you imagine the furore there would be if a suggestion was ever made that the Jodrell Bank telescopes had to be relocated in order to run a new railway line through Goostrey in order to run a new rail line to Manchester Airport...

 

[CockneySparrow]

The Cambridgeshire Busway has far exceeded the predicted passenger numbers since it opened. At a recent talk by the project manager for the scheme it was explained that further services will be introduced on the busway in the future so it seems safe for now!

Yes, though that's down to Stagecoach routing everything down there though and the fact people realise paying £79 a month for unlimited travel on stagecoach all over cambs is a cheaper option than a car

 

[TheKnightWho]

Yes, though that's down to Stagecoach routing everything down there though and the fact people realise paying £79 a month for unlimited travel on stagecoach all over cambs is a cheaper option than a car

In fairness, though, that sort of proves the point that it's been good for bus services. I mean, if it wasn't more profitable to do so, Stagecoach wouldn't have bothered routing services down it.

Whether things might have been even better with it opened as a rail line is a different matter entirely.